Journal of Ancient History 2019; 7(1): 207–232 Philip A. Harland* “The most sacred society (thiasos) of the Pythagoreans:” philosophers forming associations https://doi.org/10.1515/jah-2018-0018 Abstract: Scholarly use of the label “school” to describe groups of philosophers has sometimes led to a neglect of the ways in which such gatherings of philoso- “ phers could function as unofficial associations of recognizable types (e. g. socie- ties,” θίασοι). Concerns to distance supposedly “secular” philosophers from any “religious” connection have fed into this image of the philosophical “school,” diverting attention away from other important dimensions of associative life among philosophers and other literate professionals (e. g. physicians), including involvement in honours for the gods and in commensal activities. Epigraphic evi- dence helps to elucidate the broader associative context. The fact that some phi- losophers formed associations has implications for adjacent fields, such as Chris- tian origins, where there is a tendency to ask whether groups of Jesus followers were socially analogous to a Judean synagogue, an association, or a philosophi- cal school, as though these were distinct options rather than overlapping social phenomena. Such associations of relatively literate people were among the few in antiquity that can also be described using the scholarly category of “reading com- munities.” Keywords: ancient associations, guilds, θίασοι, philosophers, ancient physicians, Muses, reading communities I Introduction To identify oneself and one’s companions as seekers after wisdom – as “philoso- phers”–was widespread among those who wished to present themselves as in- tellectuals or experts in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. This occurred to the point where people such as Dio Chrysostom complained of those who falsely claimed the designation “philosopher” without adopting an appropriate way of *Corresponding author: Philip A. Harland, Department of Humanities, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3, E-Mail: [email protected] Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 6/17/19 2:12 PM 208 Philip A. Harland life (Or. 32.8–11; cf. Luc., Nigr. 24–25). This situation served to foster contests over the title and to further blur distinctions between traditions, schools (σχολαί)or sects (αἱρέσεις) of philosophy, which were themselves less distinct during this period (cf. Luc., Demon. 4–7). Members of ethnic or cultural minorities, for in- stance, could claim a place within Greek intellectual traditions by presenting those occupied with their own ancestral customs and writings as “philosophers” on the Greek model, as when Josephus conceives of the Judean philosophical “sects” (αἱρέσεις) of Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes or when Justin talks about his journeys through numerous Greek philosophical traditions before landing on the ultimate position of a philosopher devoted to the teachings of Jesus.1 To pro- vide a quite different example of this fluidity in identifications, sometimes physi- cians (ἰατροί) trained in the art of healing labeled themselves “philosophers,” and Galen himself pictures the true physician as a philosopher, stressing the need for physicians to engage in the study of philosophical and medical writings.2 One corollary of this situation is that, when “philosophers” did form ongoing groups (rather than wandering or working alone as others might),3 these groups would naturally reflect local social forms familiar to both participants and con- temporary observers in the eastern Mediterranean. One of the more significant social forms of the Hellenistic and Roman eras was what I am going to define as the “unofficial association,” a scholarly concept that envelops a number of re- lated ancient categorizations including the “society” (θίασος). In this article, I ar- gue that scholarly use of the label “school” to describe groups of philosophers – whether the philosophers in question used a roughly equivalent ancient designa- σχολή διατριβή αἵρεσις – tion (e. g. , , )ornot has resulted in missing a more com- plicated associative context.4 Scholarly concerns to distance supposedly “secu- lar” philosophers from any “religious” connection have sometimes fed into the image of the philosophical “school,” diverting attention away from important af- finities with other associations that are often characterized by scholars as merely “religious.” Epigraphic evidence helps to elucidate this context in which philoso- 1 Joseph., Vit. 7–12; BJ 2.119–166; AJ 18.11–25. Cf. Philo, Prob. 73–75; Contempl., as discussed further below. See Mason (2009), 217–238; Runia (1999). Justin, Trypho 2. See also Eshleman (2012), and from another angle, Wendt (2016). 2 For physicians identifying as philosophers see, for instance, Samama (2003), nos. 194, 231, 294, 321, 341, 334, 329, 365. Cf. Galen “That the Best Physician is also a Philosopher,” translated in Brain (1977). Now see Eijk (2005). 3 There were less communal notions that idealized individual study or wandering on one’s own to expand one’s horizons. See Montiglio (2000) and (2005); Scott (2011); Harland (2011). 4 Granted that the term “school” is often employed to speak of a school of thought rather than a group or institution, but the usage in scholarship seems to fluctuate back and forth between the school of thought usage and a more concrete notion of a school as social institution. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 6/17/19 2:12 PM Philosophers forming associations 209 phers formed associations. The engagement of certain philosophical groups in regular meetings in which meals and honours for gods played a key role and in participation within networks of benefaction, for instance, points to ways in which these groups functioned as associations at the local level and could some- times be recognized as such. This situation has implications for studies in related fields, including Chris- tian origins. Recently, many scholars of the Jesus movements have engaged the important question of what contemporary social analogies help us understand the social formations of those devoted to both the Israelite god and Jesus (i. e. Christians). Problematic here is the tendency to frame the discussion in terms of whether these groups were analogous to a Judean synagogue, an association, or a philosophical school, as though these were completely distinct options rather than overlapping social phenomena. Understanding how at least some philoso- phical groups-like some Judean gatherings and assemblies of Jesus followers- functioned as associations or were often viewed as such also provides a new an- gle of vision on scholarly debates regarding what ancient associations are better illuminated using the scholarly category of “reading communities.” II Defining associations Here I argue that certain groups formed by educated professionals and philoso- phers are in some important respects better understood within the context of un- official associations that were especially characteristic of the Hellenistic and Ro- man imperial eras. I use the scholarly, etic category of “unofficial associations” to describe a variety of social formations located between the family and the struc- tures of the city (πόλις).5 Our ancient subjects need not have consistently identi- fied philosophical groups as unofficial associations using any one particular an- θίασος κοινωνία κοινόν σύνοδος cient corporate term (e. g. , , , ) in order for us, as scholars, to recognize organizational or social resemblances and to engage in comparison of these groups in a sociological manner under the rubric of unoffi- cial associations. Nonetheless, this scholarly category of the unofficial associa- tion does in fact envelop, or thoroughly overlap with, a number of ancient cate- gorizations that our historical subjects did employ in relation to philosophical groups, which adds another important dimension to this particular enterprise of comparison. 5 Now see Last and Harland (2020), forthcoming introduction, for further explanation of the cate- gory. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 6/17/19 2:12 PM 210 Philip A. Harland I use the scholarly category “unofficial associations” to describe ongoing groups located between the structures of the family and the structures of the city that were relatively small, unofficial, and non-compulsory (more or less “volun- tary”), usually consisting of about 5–30 members though sometimes larger.6 The focus in this study is on these groups within the Greek-speaking eastern Mediter- ranean. Official civic groupings (e. g. tribes, phratries, demes, or other subdivi- sions) and gymnasial organizations (boys, ephebes, young men, elders) where membership was largely predetermined are excluded from this definition.7 Offi- cial boards of priests or other civic temple functionaries are excluded as well. The organizational or leadership structures of associations as defined here could vary quite widely, so unlike Haake I do not see organization – whether modeled on the structures of the city (πόλις)ornot– as a key factor in determining whether or not certain philosophical groups would be better understood if placed alongside other associations.8 Several overlapping social networks contributed to the formation of unofficial associations in the sense I define it here, including neighbourhood, domestic, ethnic, and occupational webs of connections.9 In this definition, virtually all as- sociations may have